As I said in the previous post, "no personal blogs." There are too many Perl core contributors with blogs for the average Perl user to read all of them, and there's no single "pumpking blog," so the best policy is for no personal blog to get special mention. A few automated, widely-used RSS aggregators are the best starting-point for Perl news.

As for what (IMHO) someone has to do be a "significant" Perl contributor... Adding a substantial user-visible feature and spending substantial thought and time on the day-to-day business of Perl maintenance count. Cosmetic, mindless source code changes (e.g. replacing tabs with spaces) don't.

EDIT: Cute:

Reputation: -2 (+0 -2)

So petdance and one other person won't tolerate even mild, tangential criticism of petdance.

So if you don't work on core Perl 5, you don't count as a significant Perl contributor? That's pretty limiting, since there are only a few dozen of those people, and Perl 5 is far more than what ships in an individual perl-5.x.x.tar.gz tarball.

You slight literally thousands of CPAN authors with your standards, saying that they are not "significant Perl contributors", and I suspect you're alone in your assessment. CPAN authors who create and maintain the tens of thousands of modules that make up the CPAN, whether little-used or wildly popular like Moose and Dancer, are making Perl 5 a much better place.

I wish there was a better term than "news" for blog aggregation. Without human editorial decisions, it's just a firehose. I'm not saying it's not valuable, but it's not news. My whole point in starting Perlbuzz with Skud was to specifically pick the interesting stuff out of the firehose.